Hot Planet

Professors Iain Stewart and Professor Kathy Sykes take a timely look at global warming ahead of the Copenhagen summit, exploring the world's leading climate scientists' vision of the planet's future.

Scientists predict that if global temperatures continue to rise at their current rate, Earth will be one degree warmer within 10 years, two degrees warmer within the next 40 years and three degrees or more warmer before the end of the century.

If the Earth's temperature increases to three degrees warmer than the average pre-industrial temperature, the impact on the planet will be catastrophic. Across the Earth, ways of life could be lost forever as climate change accelerates out of control. This isn't inevitable, however: climate change is not yet irreversible.

Ingenious technology and science is currently being devised, advanced and tested around the world which could offer solutions for a sustainable future. The question that remains is, can the world embrace and implement them on a large enough scale within an effective time-line?

If widespread damage to human societies and ecosystems is to be prevented, global temperature rise must be slowed and eventually reversed. Hot Planet offers an accurate visual prediction of the planet's future, based on the findings of over 4,000 climate scientists.

131 Comments / User Reviews

Yes sir Mr. Preetan Rai...Cudos to you! Any warming we are experiencing has everything to do with the Sun, & absolutely nothing to do with Man. Accept for the greedy Men in positions of power, creating a fear motivator, so they can charge all the idiots a Carbon Tax. What straight forward BS! Thank you Mr. Preetan Rai. My you continue to live a long, prosperous, life further enhanced by your wisdom.

And just what qualifies you to say that Preetam Rai? Are you a climate scientist? can you even understand a peer reviewed scientific paper? Do you even know what one looks like?

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 10:56

Well, i'm MIT...ya i can read-wright and understand very good...also i did geology student final year...so i do understand what they r saying Sir.

Willy
- 04/02/2015 at 11:11

Well that's great Preetam Rai! What's your opinion on the recent DIRECT OBSERVATION of atmospheric CO2 interaction resulting in warming of the atmosphere over the Arctic?

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 11:34

Co2 nothing to do with climate...i might be high because our parent star 'SUN'. Over 80% Co2 create by sea...past 4-5 year Co2 @ high but temperature drop. Here in India my city [Patna] went high 45*, but after 2013 it is not upto 40*...in Romen time earth hoter than today...I know climate change but not by human...big convict of climate change is Sun not human or nor Co2. Sir

Willy
- 04/02/2015 at 11:43

And yet...all of the actual scientific evidence disagrees with you.

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 11:55

Which one...12000 year ago ice age end just one click. No volcano, No man made Co2, no any thing...in the time of neanderthal climate change more than today...science driven by political leaders because of money. Give me any clue to belive that....

Willy
- 04/02/2015 at 12:00

Look up Younger-Dryas

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 12:02

I did all ready, nothing

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 17:59

Is there any point in commenting on this garbage?

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 12:01

CO2 are all time high today. But temperature are not...thwre are no global warming past 16 year...and we human are so mediocre to think we chang our mother earth...no Sir...over 7 billion people live on our beautiful planet and only same are living high standard life...if we really save our self we have to think hard and quick...

Willy
- 04/02/2015 at 12:05

Wrong. each year since the 90s has been hotter than the last. You need to pay attention to the actual science rather than profit driven tabloids

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 12:22

1945 to 1980 high time of industrial growth, yet globe was cooling...the truth is the more our Sun heat wave, the more sea temperature rise, and more co2 release in atmosphere. May you tell me how many co2 release by human?

Preetam Rai
- 04/02/2015 at 17:54

Politicians and the New Media need disasters (real of fabricated) in
order to survive. Politicians need them so that they can offer the
"solution" to the disaster. The News needs disasters so that they can
get readers and viewers. The Global Warming craze was made popular by a
politician (Al Gore) and has been promoted by the New Media. And there
you have it.

Alexander Owen Spencer
- 10/16/2013 at 07:02

@drsandman2:disqus How about you actually do research. Peter speaks the truth, I can see you are a sheeple by the fact that you say "all the scientists" you must have watch an Inconvenient Truth and ate it up never to look into the subject again. The IPCC is not the leading authorities on climate, they were actually created in 1988 with the goal of examining GLOBAL COOLING LOL. Look into it, in the 70's and 80's the IPCC was absolutely convinced that we were headed for an Ice Age. Then in the late 90's they shifted gears to Global Warming instead so they could keep their funding. Also take a look at this years winter Arctic sea ice levels, they are the HIGHEST IN RECORDED HISTORY. As a final note in regards to this doc, polar bears have been unchanged for 300,000 years and yet they have been through both heat ages and ice ages, why would they die off now when we are actually at a lower global temp than in previous heat ages they survived?

The IPCC are a joke. Yes and are funded by Al Gores big corporations pushing for a carbon credit system. ie. another business middle man to drive up the cost of goods across the planet. Thank gawd most of the top scientists have jumped off their band wagon anyway.

So lets push for legalization of hemp and shut big oil down.

Willy
- 04/02/2015 at 11:05

Alexander Owen Spencer, had you done even a LITTLE BIT of research you'd know that "Global Cooling" was never seriously considered by the scientific community. The idea of Global warming was first bandied about in the late 50s and Paul Ehrlich formalized the theory in a 1968 book. Global cooling was periodically proposed as a POSSIBLE outcome of excessive atmospheric aerosol emissions. An article in Time Magazine in 1974 and another in Newsweek in '75. reported on the possibility that Earth was entering a new ice age but, throughout the seventies evidence continued to mount showing a a warming trend due to a radical rise in atmospheric CO2. By the late 1970s this was so obvious that pretty much all of the proponents of "Global Cooling" agreed that the atmosphere was in fact warming.
I don't know where you got your info on winter Arctic sea ice or the paleontology of Polar Bears as both of your contentions are demonstrably WRONG. While the AREA of sea ice has indeed recovered somewhat this year the actual MASS continues to fall. Polar bears need this MASS in order to thrive and breed, The loss of MASS has forced polar bears to radically alter their behavior in recent years. As you so adroitly pointed out, polar bears are VERY adaptable. So, rather than relying upon sea ice record numbers of them are now moving inland in order to exploit other resources. The record numbers of polar bears showing up to dumpster dive in northern neighborhoods as well as the increasingly frequent observations of the once rare "Prizzly bear (Grizzly bear x Polar bear) bear this out. In both arctic and antarctic environments tremendos change is taking place. Penguin colonies are failing. Fur seal populations are dropping, benthic environments are radically changing. The change is real, The reports are coming in from all continents, from all seas. There is NO DOUBT of it and with the recent direct observational evidence of green house gas impacting the atmosphere to deny that it is happening is ridiculous.

Peter Ekelund
- 12/23/2012 at 14:09

and for he last 16 years the climate have ben getting cooler. carbon dioxide have nothing to do with "global warming" carbon dioxide dont drive global warming, global warming drives carbon dioxide. after some research these type of films is actually realy interesting

You, sir, are an i*iot and contradict all scientists. Tell me, man of no punctuation and grammar, where do you get your facts? My guess is you think that the world is 6,000 years old and some fairy tale supernatural force listens to your self-pity.

SHASHANK
- 05/20/2013 at 07:01

before u call somebody a religious nut.You should go see both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion foruself rather than just abandon all your reasoning skills and just assume that global warming is true because the media says there are top scientists currently agreeing on this matter.The truth is far from it.Infact there are a number of scientists who disagree with it and all of them where once part of the global warming movement.Now think of why they would just drop out of it and risk loosing a well paid job and bonuses that you would be getting if you decided to stay in it.

realitygirl
- 08/18/2012 at 03:50

Global warming or not, we still need to clean up our act. Typical humans - spending trillions trying to bury the problem instead of trillions to change our ways. The powers that be don't want to clean up their ways - too much profits involved.

Really Jallen? And just where did you hear that? I'm sure that the 99% of climate scientists who agree in anthropogenic climate change would love to hear from your sources!

SHASHANK
- 05/20/2013 at 07:06

Just because a majority of people agree on something it doesnt make it right.If it was then the nazis would still be occupying Europe and the holocaust would still be taking place.The reason these scientist agree on it is beacuse the global warming campaign is big business and there is a lot of money to be made of it.Al gore was the one who actually kickstarted this campaign in a big way.If you research about the guy you will realise that he owns stakes in many of the companies that seek profits directly in relation to global warming like taxing carbon emissions etc.

whoshotcyrus
- 03/04/2015 at 17:09

Look at the Martian polar ice caps..... they too are shrinking.......... hmmmm

Jallen
- 08/09/2012 at 12:59

Why are they asking us to reduce co2 when the Governments and industry are responsible for it, not us.

I don't want to be a contrarian; indeed, I'm not a contrarian on this subject, but we should keep in mind the history of climate events.

A prescient example is the Toba eruption 75,000 years ago. This volcanic eruption immediately led to a 3-5 C reduction in global mean temperatures. A massive species die off, and the near extinction of Homo sapiens.

Just 75,000 years later (the blink of a geologic eye), and the planet's species diversity has completely recovered; Homo sapiens population has gone from as low as 1,000 after the eruption (we truly barely made it) to 7,000,000,000 today.

Is it possible that the global mean temperature will rise by 6 C over the next century? Yes, if we do nothing, which we haven't. Will this have severe impacts on global species diversity and quality of life for us humans? Yes. Will it herald the worst catastrophe in Earth's history? No.

We have a tremendous capability to minimize the impacts of climate change, and it is our duty, not our childrens, to address the issue. However, to paint our predicament as a choice about the fate of the planet is specious if not outright propaganda.

I understand that many feel a strong message must be iterated to compel the masses toward change, but I refuse to believe that masking hyperbole as fact is righteous. Tell people that the end is nigh unless we change our ways, and skepticism, not action, will manifest.

Many push alternative energy without realizing that it is economic growth that is the fundamental issue. Infinite growth on a finite planet is scientifically impossible. A transition to alternative energy does not change this. For example, the increase in methane output from ruminants (due to increasing wealth, and thus demand, from emerging economies) would nullify any transition to wind or solar. Remember that methane is an ~18 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Not to mention that the construction of wind mills and solar panels requires rare earth metals, which are extremely costly (in terms of pollution and CO2 emissions) to mine. This issue is more complex than these shows confess.

Our global economy requires economic growth to function, but that growth is the very noose that tightens around our civilization daily.

The real problem arises if the planet enters a period of self perpetuating run-away warming like we see on Venus. That planet SHOULD be very Earth like and temperate but is in fact hellishly hot due to huge amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere and a run-away greenhouse effect. You think this can't happen on planet Earth...it already has at least once. At the end of the Permian Period 252.28 million years ago that's exactly what happened. The result? A mass extinction event that wiped out 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates. Hardly anything larger than a house cat survived on land! Depending upon the area plant diversity in terrestrial ecosystems also declined greatly. From 50% in dry forest habitats to upwards of 95% in wet forests and bogs. What chance do you think WE would have under those conditions?

brianrose87
- 08/30/2012 at 03:41

Willyboy1257,

You may want to re-read my comment.

You ask "What chance do you think WE would have under those conditions?"

I need not posit new information; I'll simply reiterate what I already stated.

75,000 years ago the species Homo sapiens was driven to near extinction by a volcanic eruption that created an immediate (not gradual) global winter that lasted many years. I predict that human activities will again lead to a catastrophic collapse in population, but our population will bottom at a number much higher than 1,000 since we occupy EVERY environment on the planet.

Do you believe that our global population will fall below 1,000 individuals?

What happened to species diversity AFTER the Permian Extinction? Did Homo sapiens evolve before or after Earth's "Venus" moment?

I posit that our species is of little significance on a geological timescale.

Cyanobacteria had a far larger impact on the Earth's atmosphere. They took atmospheric concentrations of Oxygen from a few ppm (parts per million) to the current 21%. If you know chemistry, then you know that oxygen is a highly corrosive and toxic substance. ALL LIFE ON EARTH REQUIRED ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS TO SURVIVE, but through the process of evolutionary change oxygen became the main fuel of all heterotrophs on Earth (this is due to Oxygen's unique character of having the lowest reduction potential of all elements, a fascinating subject if you research it).

In contrast to cyanobacteria Homo sapiens has taken CO2 concentrations from 270 ppm to 390 ppm. I must reiterate, cyanobacteria took Oxygen from 100 ppm to 209,500 ppm. You see the difference?

We try to consume antioxidants because they neutralize free radicals made of oxygen. H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) is used by our bodies immune cells (peroxisomes) to kill bacteria.

Get a grip on how truly inconsequential humans are compared to past life on Earth. Its tragic that we're creating the conditions for our own demise, but that's only relative. For this to be a tragedy we have to be smarter than cyanobacteria or yeast in a wine vat. Alas, we are not, although our collective hubris would have us believe we are more intelligent than "other" life.

jim adams
- 05/14/2013 at 03:15

Cyanobacteria took many millions of years to shift O2 from almost zilch to 20% of total atmosphere. We've take 300 years to take CO2 from 270 to 390 with 600 ppm in the offing.

brianrose87
- 06/03/2013 at 14:48

Your comment is intentionally deceptive. You refer to Oxygen levels as a percentage, but to CO2 as ppm. Oxygen went from 270 ppm to 210,000 ppm. CO2 is at 400 ppm as of today. You do see the difference, correct?

Please don't use deceptive wording to sway people.

Tony Lam Tran
- 04/18/2012 at 23:21

What I don't like about the documentary is its brief touch on the delicate nature of various ecosystems. The documentary acknowleges alternative methods of power sources such as Solar power or Wind Energy, but does not present the negative effects it has on Nature itself. By using the lands that are uninhabitable by humans to create these solar power plants, we are essentially forcing groups of species to migrate to other regions where the environment is less favourable for the survival of certain species. The topic of climate change is very controversial and delicate. Nevertheless, a great documentary to develop our further understanding of climate changes as Global Citizens.

Aren't we already forcing groups of species to migrate to other regions through our way of living now? In think that destroying rain forests, building dams etc are worse for them than the alternatives of solar and wind energy. The biggest threat to life as such on earth however, is the amount of people living on this planet and, more, their way of living.
I know the issue is controversial, but in 1995 I went to Namibia, and no one had ever heard of climate change, global warming, especially in that region. However, the people there complaint about changes in the climate and landscape: no rainfall where and when it should have been and rainfall where en when it shouldn't have been. rivers that should be full of water were empty for the first time in a lifetime. And these people had nothing to gain with a so-called 'global warning myth', on the contrary, they had (and have) everything to lose!

what they should do is take the CO2 emissions that are being/can be saved and fill some sort of massive tubing and use it to create floating islands like sol in south Korea. That way if the ice caps do flood we can just be safely adrift :)

As soon as I discovered billions would be paid through
cap and trade to the Rothschild bank, I knew global warming is and was a scam.

Zippy
- 06/04/2013 at 23:39

As soon as I discovered Al Gore, son of Senator Al Gore senior, KKK member extraordinaire, had jumped on the global warming bandwagon, I knew global warming is and was a scam.

Ellen Malmin
- 12/31/2011 at 20:37

Good film - how come that most solar stocks went down with 70 to 80% here in 2011, are there someone trying to sabotage the transition towards a more sustinable furture? Can we put the blame on Wall Street cynical profit oriented personalities working there?

Oh, you better believe we can! Not sure if that's why it happened in this case, but...just a couple of days ago I was reading an article about a study conducted which confirmed the tendency of corporations and the wealthy to actually only shoot for short-term goals and to play it very conservatively... which I suppose must seem pretty obvious. But the implications are maybe just as obvious, aren't they? The only reason we don't have a lot of the solutions we need for a more sustainable future very broadly implemented already is not because the technology doesn't exist or is too unfeasible or risky, but because it would've cut into someone's profits, or perhaps have even run them out of business, were they unable to adapt.

Missing the long-term consequences in favor of short-term gains...

It's a complicated business, alright, but in a nutshell: I don't have a problem with the current car-manufacturers making a fortune selling affordable electric cars, do you? Let them all turn a profit in a way that isn't lowering us into the ground while they're doing it.

DReadrush
- 12/18/2011 at 18:12

Please, is MrIceland seriously pointing people to that well documented piece of baseless propaganda 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? And telling us about about a single coldest night at his place (in the last 10 years, which have been in the 11 hottest since instrumental recording began in the 1880s)? Why indeed do we have The Great Global Warming Swindle on the site - I understand need for balance on such sites (and perhaps some historic perspective on the tactics of biased sceptics), but this unfounded propaganda has been well debunked by many and more learned individuals and groups. The Royal Society calls the polemic itself a ‘swindle’, of course it was lambasted by the IPCC, together with the British Antarctic Survey and many respected scientists (including some scientists misrepresented in the 'documentary'), and even Ofcom ruled, admittedly not going far enough, that the film committed multiple breaches of the broadcasting code. But I suppose these learned people are all mindlessly defending their pet conspiracy?

this guy's accent doing my head. where is guy coming from, there is anybody there to speak little proper? I was ok for first 5 min but got tired of his RRRR eeerrrraaeeeerrrr kind of accent. I dont know, maybe its me upset tonight a little.

maybe try ignoring the accent and concentrate on the program. I would bet my house that you are American.

Frank Snapp
- 12/05/2011 at 06:27

Big problems and big opportunities:

Big problem: methane burp is coming. The estimates of hitting the 3C by the end of the century are entirely over optimistic for so many reasons; but mostly related to positive feedback loops. It is very likely that methane burps from tunda and boreal sources, as well as from forests growing in warmer than normal climate will trigger the big jump to 10C to even 18C probably by the end of the 21st Century. There are a number of positive feeback looks that would contribute to this apparently more cynical but much more factually likely projection. Arctic Sea Ice is probably gone in less than 10 years from now. The full melting of the majority of Greenland continental ice mass is likely within 25 years, not within 150 years or whatever the current least conservative estimate is. Disinformation or missinformation is not just the perview of military, corporate, covert information sources and everything is infected by it.

Big opportunities well described hear and there by this documentary, are the diversity of solutions possible. Time to release the creativity of more than just 1% of the citizens of the planet that have any hope of even the beginning access to education of the higher sort. We need the creativity and stewarding activities of the majority of the current 7B humans. Overall, I give this documentary a B-. Some good little known ideas discussed, but too much credit paid to status quos that are destroying the planet. Nuclear is a good example. This video was perhaps made pre-Fukushima, I suspect.

After watching the documentary, and reading the blogs below, I am more convinced then ever that there is no solution that will work. Trapping co2 emmissions in sandstone??? To begin with, co2 emisssions are not the cause of global warming. The poles on Mars are presently melting as well, and I am certain humans are not to blame for it. Since the sun is obviously heating up, any solution we can conjure up is meaningless. This is not to say that we aren't poisoning the biosphere, only that a lot of nonsense is being spewed by the so called 'experts'.
The two gentlemen below can''t even be civil with one another, and they both apparently care about the planet, so what is the problem? Simply put, the cancer of humanity only prides itself on wealth, and since those in control will go to any length to continue the status quo of greed, my advice is quit fighting with each other, and direct your attention towards those who have been robbing you blind since the inception of society. My advice is quit worrying about the planet, and start looking out for each other, and the problems will take care of themselves. Since we are incapable of saving each other, how could anyone truly believe we are going to save the planet.
The awful truth is a billion years from now, the Earth will be baking as the sun expands in size due to it's elderly age. Your time would be better spent watching George Carlin on youtube speaking about ' saving the planet'. It was recorded 30 years ago, and has more truth then the nonsense I just watched. Besides, we are not talking about saving the planet, we are talking about saving ourselves. If all this is too depressing for everyone, then get off your butts and do something about it, otherwise, relax, have fun, get yourself fixxed, and quit bringing anymore innocent children into this nightmare until such time when we truly act appropriately.

Pardon I said Brazil not Amazon. My mother passed away long ago. And as for the Derps that is your thing as evidenced on a number of comment sections here on top docs. You have destroyed nothing in your interaction with me here as you have simply degraded to childish name calling and cursing. I am more than happy with an end to your responses. I am sure I will see you crop up with your insightfull imput on many more docs here in your usual form of insult slinging gibberish. Im sure there are three billygoats trip tropping your bridge you need to go harrangue now so take care.

""I plainly said Amazon. Referring to The beni province of Bolivia along the Brazillian border.""

No you feckin didn't! You make stuff up as you go along.

"My mother passed away long ago." What the hell has that got to do with anything? I played darts last month. That's about as relevant.

The rest of your latest response is yet more b0llocks!!!!

Are you mentally ill? Do you need some sort of urgent medical response?

Again - you are a sublime troll and for that you have my endless admiration. It's fairly obvious and it's sort of fun to play along. I could be wrong in which case you need some urgent psychiatric help.

Now please Moar hot pockets and xbox exploits await you. I suggest you get back to them. Because you are clearly incapable of making any rational or relevant response to any conversation.

PS I`ve only used derp in two other discussions ever. You really need to learn how to google. I think that's the least of your problems though.

I`m sure once you grow up things will improve.

natasha0
- 11/17/2011 at 23:32

Hang on a second, this has been been happening far before our influence.
Yes we could also be more efficient, We certainly have the current technology. But do we have motivation as a whole species to change, unfortunately not... Looks like there will have to come a moment where we have no choice.

The question is not do we have the motivation but do we have the intelligence to change. I believe we have both or at least will do once survival become a real day to day issue.

Which is your final point. One day we will have no choice. So anyway what is your right eye doing next Wednesday night?

natasha0
- 11/20/2011 at 12:12

My right eye has a habit of doing whatever it pleases, so answering that is impossible.
Besides, i have no doubt that both our right eyes are in different countries, looking at totally different things.

StillRV
- 11/17/2011 at 22:21

A; Those forests were not replanted they propagated on their own in the natural order of things.
B; this can be observed in all places I have visited from parts of Europe to the majority of the US.
C; Do some research into what they are finding in south and central America in those regions they are logging. Man made irrigation structures and mounds as old as Mesopotamia. Ancient enough for you? (sigh) Those areas were once cleared for agriculture in the past and the world kept turning. But you are right those who live in third world nations should be forced by the rest of the world to stay that way so that we can feel better about the ecological state of the planet. Why should places like Brazil have a source of income? Let alone a right to (gasp) use their environment and their resources to grow and prosper as a nation. I don't see you throwing your stones at anyone but the US. Is that because the UK developed long enough ago to be overlooked? Or because China who is industrializing faster than any nation could care less what you think? Or because the media of today tells you it's cool to be edgy and anti US? Hey why not protest the actions of Mexico for strip mining. Or tie yourself to a tree in the amazon to prevent a farmer from clearing space for a farm? Ohh yea because they want to live and prosper and have a chance at a life like you have in your cozy flat sitting on your ever expanding back side woofing down your chips and preaching on the internet. And they are willing to drive the bulldozer right over you to get it.

It makes me so mad how no matter what any of you say here nothing will change, our beautiful world is still dying, humans are destroying this planet, but of course who am I? I'm just a 17 year old kid who no-one would listen to, but I'm smart enough to know that we need things to change and right now! But the worst part is the people who "lead" our countries are just idiots, if they really wanted to they could save this world by actually changing things for the better.

Ok Some of you did not believe my earlier response. So For you I will give supporting information. It should honestly not be necessary to point this out. You complain that cows produce methane (as do goats pigs etc.) and that our carnivorous needs have created a cow population that is endangering the global environment with its farts. [honestly can't believe I had to type such a insane sentence] Well Herbivores such as cows pigs goats etc. produce said methane as a result of diet. By putting all of humanity on the cows diet we will become the destructive farting apocalypse instead of the cows. On a side note to that, The vast heard of wild buffalo in the US prior to westward expansion was greater in number than are todays domesticated cattle. And lets not delve int the enormous ozone depleting terror that was know as bracheosaurus. Animal farts are not ending the world.

As to there being more trees now than there were hundreds of years ago. This is fact. Modern industrial farming methods have replaced the prior practice of small holdings, sharecropping, and subsistence agriculture. Due to that ability of the plains areas such as the American Midwest to produce sufficient crops more forests have been allowed to regrow. I live in New York state. Contrary to your implication that I do not get out much, I spend the vast majority of my time not at work hiking camping and exploring very deep into the forests. And what I see out there often are the remains of stone walls in the middle of tree filled regions. These are not walls made by some wild woodsman who felt like stacking rocks. They are stones pulled from agricultural fields. Massive quantities of what is now forested land was once clear cut farm land and the evidence of that is there for any and all to see as well as land records from the past that show how many acres upon acres of land were farms that are now absolutely full of trees. On a side note to that. Old growth forest actually has fewer trees in it than does new growth forest. The entire biomass of is even higher. Which in turn means that it actually recaptures more carbon dioxide than does old growth. In the space taken by one 60' tall oak one could easily have 20 20' maples. That's how forests work. If you don't believe me look it up. Look at the huge amount of growth that takes place when just one canopy tree falls in a rain forest.

So you see there was no disinformation there at all. Just facts that come from scientific texts compiled by researchers and field specialists who publish their scientifically backed work in scientific journals and not on some rainbow bedazzled Utopian dream web site with links to pot articles and the tour dates for Phish concerts. Ohh and lets not forget the web pages put out by persons who are heavily invested in carbon offsetting schemes running on the fear sweat of guilty consciences. Shall we talk about how carbon offsetting works? Some corporate demon pays a percentage of their revenue to the corrupt government of some third world nation to "keep it's lands pristine and untouched" [translation; halt development in countries where starvation illness and poverty kill thousands]. That Off setting of untouched wild is the exchange offered the developed nations and its people to assuage their guilt for "destroying our planet". This scheme was employed once before by the Catholic church, they called it indulgence. Where by the church would sell some guilt ridden soul a get out of jail free card, which in actual value amounted to nothing but somehow made the poor ignorant schlub feel better. It worked well then and it seems like it's gonna work well again now. Funny even the threat is the same. If you don't give us money you are gonna end up in a hot place.

So please save me the misinformed hippie rhetoric on the web. The hypocrisy of people who set themselves up as crusaders for the environment on a machine with petroleum based plastic casings and keyboards, silicone chips and "Blood coltan" components powered electrically by their local coal/oil/nuclear power plant is staggeringly amusing.

I truly am sorry if you are offended by my words. I love the environment too. I don't litter I have a big garden and I live lightly. However I just cannot stand preachy environuts who spout whatever nonsense Big Al feeds them. If you would like to learn more about nature and the world we live in stop visiting those web sites, go to the library and pick up forest census studies and the like. That facts are there.

"excuse my chemistry ignorance but is it not quite easy to separate carbon and oxygen and use the carbon in someway? i'd be interested to hear anyones thoughts or knowledge."

The short answer is no. It is difficult to even collect carbon dioxide and even harder to seperate. The reason is that it is such a stable molecule, check out a lewis structure of the molecule and you will see what I mean. You have two double only very slightly polar covalent bonds extending from the carbon to the two oxygens. Oxygen is just barely more electro negative than carbon, but its such a slight difference it's not worth mentioning. Carbons most stable oxydation states are 2 and 4, oxygens most stable oxydation state is -2, the two atoms fit like an electro static glove. In other words seperating them is an uphill (non-spontaneous) reaction, just as the molecule's birth was a spontaneous or downhill reaction. Uphill reactions have to be driven by some type of energy from start to finish. Right now that energy comes from fossil fuels that create more CO2. In the end you end up with a net increase in CO2 emmisions caused by the seperation procedure. Here is what the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center has to say ont he subject. You can google "separating carbon from carbon dioxide" and get the article.

"The problem in separating the carbon and oxygen from CO2 is that CO2 is a VERY stable molecule, because of the bonds that hold the carbon and oxygen together, and it takes a lot of energy to separate them. Most schemes being considered now involve conversion to liquid or solids. One present concept for capturing CO2, such as from flue gases of boilers, involves chemical reaction with MEA (monoethanol amine). Other techniques include physical absorption; chemical reaction to methanol, polymers and copolymers, aromatic carboxylic acid, or urea; and reaction in plant photosynthetic systems (or synthetic versions thereof). Overcoming energetic hurdles is a major challenge; if the energy needed to drive these reactions comes from burning of fossil fuels, there may not be an overall gain. One aspect of the current research is the use of catalysts to promote the reactions. (In green plants, of course, chlorophyll is such a catalyst!) One area of current research is looking at using cellular components to imitate photosynthesis on an industrial scale.

The reason I was so interested in your question is that my chemistry degree is geared to ecological concerns and this is something my university, The University of North Alabama UNA, is currently engaged in research on. We are looking into Co2 storage actually insted of seperation techniques. But, in my humble opinion seperation will be the way to go in the future. The main issue is the energy it takes to drive such a non-spontaneous reaction. I we have to get that energy through traditional means there is no net decrease in Co2 emmissions. Good question though, that's the kind of thinking we need. Not just sweeping it under the rug by storing under ground, but actually reclaiming a valuable raw material and creating jobs while reducing environmental concerns. The key is understanding the cellular mechanics and chemistry of green plants that turn carbon dioxide and sun light into glucose and oxygen via photosynthesis. There is tons of research going into this right now.

funny.. because it's freezing, cold and wet here in Sydney Australia. Our government built a desalination plant a few years ago fearing that our state will be going through long periods of drought caused by global warming. Then lo & behold, the weather changed and we've had the coldest and wettest seasons in 70 years. Water levels are so good, the desalination plant is now useless - the government threw millions of tax payers dollars into this. Another state, Queensland was flooded in some parts earlier this year.

Now the government wants to bring on a carbon tax because of global warming "advisers". Even though Australia makes small carbon footprint impact, we'll be paying the world's HIGHEST carbon tax. Of course, this isn't going to stop global warming unless China & India comes to the table, but heck the Australian government wants to drive the country into the dark ages. In reality, the government is broke - that's what the "carbon tax" is really about, they need money to cover the million dollar mistakes they made (example: desalination plant for global warming drought that didn't happen as predicted)

Let's make fake tree's to asborb CO2!!!!! Let's squirt it into porous rock!!!

Derp Let's stop cutting down tree's and grow more of them!

We eat too many cows and the livestock industry creates 18 pct of the emissions? Well f&ck me sideways what can we do?

Derp. Eat more vegetables perhaps?

It isn't rocket science, but the globailsts want us to think it is. The biggest problem that faces us today is greed and over population. How about rationalising profits and cutting down on over-breeding theists or at the very least stop rewarding them with child support payments.

Why should a person who is good at hitting a ball with a metal stick earn a million or more times the average income and why should we in general have to support 'needy' families who want 6+ kids?

We need a license to drive a car, to fish, for a TV (in the UK at least) yet people can pump out kids by the dozen.

Two or three generations of sensible action would solve our problems. I insist on being voted in as world president immediately!

"Why should a person who is good at hitting a ball with a metal stick earn a million or more times the average income....."

Er....sorry to break it to you Yavanna but whether it's a baseball bat or cricket bat it's made of wood. Yes we're cutting down trees to make them. You've got my vote for world resident.

Edit: Oh, sorry, you said president. I'll have to think about that. ;o)

Yavanna
- 11/15/2011 at 13:50

Thanks for the vote Tom!

I was referring to Tiger Woods the world's highest earning sports person. We don't have to completely stop using wood but it's use can be restricted. You can still have your wooden baseball bat instead of a plastic or aluminium one. But only provided you grow the tree for it personally on your own land.

tomregit
- 11/15/2011 at 21:44

Facepalm: I guess it's obvious I'm not a golfer.

StillRV
- 11/15/2011 at 23:53

Derp. Herbivores produce more methane than carnivores do, thus your silly vegan solution actually does more harm than good.
Derp. There are more trees on the planet now than there were hundreds of years ago or possibly ever.
Derp. Atheists F%^& too.

Yavanna
- 11/16/2011 at 02:16

Wow! I didn't think anyone could fit so much disinformation into such a small space but you somehow managed it. Grats!

David Foster
- 11/16/2011 at 04:02

"Herbivores produce more methane than carnivores do.."
I fart best when drinking milk.

"There are more trees on the planet now than there were hundreds of years ago or possibly ever."
You must not get out much.

"Atheists F%^& too."
As much, if not more (thank God).

StillRV
- 11/16/2011 at 05:55

That is because lactose intolerance is present in most adults to some extent. I bet cheese makes ya a bit gassy too. Seriously though look into the regional records of farm land in your area. I bet you would be shocked to find that the huge national park you take a stroll through now and again was a clear cut tract of small holdings farms 200 years ago.

Guest
- 11/16/2011 at 08:48

made me laugh
az

Yavanna
- 11/17/2011 at 17:09

"I fart best when drinking milk. "
A big juicy steak with some fried onions can keep me fuelled for a week of super charged smellies! Anyway we are omnivores, not herbivores as he suggested and we produce half a litre of fart a day as opposed to 200 litres by cattle. Furthermore our farts have a tiny percentage of methane content. It's because we digest food differently to ruminants. This is a good thing as it's one of my favourite hobbies!

"There are more trees on the planet.. blah blah " & "You must not get out much."
He may well get out a bit, but only in his small corner of the world. The US does replant trees so technically there are more trees today in the US than in the ancient (sigh) days of the 1700s. But silly little trees that provide scant ecology for wildlife and are planted little more than as a diversionary tactic, and to appease ecologists. When he says 'planet' he is talking about 'Planet USA.' Most of the third world countries are over logging. Globally we lose millions of acres of forest a year and a large percentage of that is to provide yet more space to cattle so as Americans can continue to shovel more beefburgers down their throats. God, Guns and Gluttons.

"Atheists F%^& too." & "As much, if not more (thank God)."

F%^&ing wasn't the issue. Overpopulation is. Atheists aren't commanded by their deity of choice to go forth and multiply. Catholics and Muslims in particular breed like rabbits whereas as much as atheists might be world champion F%^&ers they also tend to breed in moderation.

Thank God? Surely you meant thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Peace be upon his noodley appendages?

KsDevil
- 11/13/2011 at 22:38

A bit of a dramatic sell, but the information presented was fairly correct. I noticed there was no mention of the frozen methane at the bottom of the oceans. Once that melts, the tipping point will be evident.
Still, it is clear that the increase in greenhouse gasses in such a short time that corelate with the rise of th oil based economy of the planet is enhancing the natural climatic cycle.
But fear not. We are in the age of peak oil and soon enough all of the excess carbon released into the atmosphere will going away.
And, yes, the carbon tax is a scheme that takes advantage of the situation. Never let a crisis pass you by to make some money.

excuse my chemistry ignorance but is it not quite easy to separate carbon and oxygen and use the carbon in someway? i'd be interested to hear anyones thoughts or knowledge.

good documentary - cant help but wonder how much input governments have in the production of these programs..... not that i feel that this gave any dis-information... maybe i've just become a little paranoid . .

To hell with it. Right now, the Great Barrier Reef is being dredged. A World Heritage Site; the most sensitive areas of the water basin is being polluted through gas mining (fracking) and such projects are going on silently off radar all over the world. This is not a viable option of any value and the wanton destuction of the water basin and the soil which will never be in a conditon to produce food or support life. Chemtrails are vomited in stupendous quantities all over the world without a murmur from these jerks.

Weather Modification, Weather Warfare, H.A.A.R.P. Scalar, GMO and they wonder 'gosh' that the climate (which is always changing) is becoming unpredictable. Winkers. Carbon Tax is the biggest bad joke in the history of this disastrous 'civilisation' amid ferocious competition. Oh, all right, neck and neck with the IMF.

Of cause it is true that the climate has been changing ever since the formation of our planet. And all that change over billions of years of cause is the reason for the extinction and even the creation of countless numbers of species.
The only difference this time is that we are the once who are responsible for the change and that we not only threaten the existence of certain species but even our very own.

@ Jeremy
There is nothing wrong with questioning how much of the earth's current warming cycle is due to human activity, but the smallest amount of research would tell you that, when measuring CO2 output, ALL of the volcanoes around the world produce less than 1% of that generated by human activity ( from the US Geological Survey). If, as you state, CO2 levels are 30% higher that does not mean temperatures should rise by the same proportion. Your foolish assertions do your argument no favour and may call into question your intellectual honesty and/or intelligence.
@Branefart
I grew up in Alberta and lived there for over forty years. What you say is nonsense. Throughout history, there have been both bone chilling cold winters and unusually mild winters. This is not climate change; it is a weather pattern.
@ Suzanne
Yes, "nearly all scientists believe in global warming". It is a measurable fact. The idea worth questioning is the cause.
@ Benjamin Clarkson
This is NOT the hottest this planet has ever been. You should check on the veracity of your statements, or anything else you say will rightly be viewed with contempt.
@ Anthony Pirtle
"Wow, the 'skeptics' are out on this one"
Yes, why shouldn't they be? I don't know the cause of global warming. The earth has gone through dozens of ice ages and periods much warmer than now. I believe human activity certainly has some bearing on what's happening but the jury is out on just how much. Limiting and phasing out our use of fossil fuels makes good sense for many reasons, but doing so may have little effect on climate change.

@ Tom - The documentary said that ppm co2 had risen from 208 (roughly) to 348 (don't remember the exact number) which would actually be a rise of 50%, my reasoning is that if c02 is related to temperature, why has the temperature not risen by anymore than a menial amount (fraction of a percent). And I will admit, apparently the volcano thing is untrue, I apologize for that statement, a friend told me that years ago and I took him at his word. Volcanoes apparently do not put out much so apologies on that one.

I also once again, never said we should not question or do anything about this, finding alternatives to our chemical lifestyle should be our #1 concern and by doing so our pollution and oil etc concerns will be a thing of the past.

Herman
- 03/20/2012 at 04:12

Hi Jeremy
The last 600,000 years the atmosphere's CO2 concentration has never exceeded 290 ppm (parts per million). Today we have 388 ppm.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has an impact on the temperature.This gives reason to believe that a 33% raise in CO2 would give 33% raise in temperature.... BUT IT DOES NOT

Let's for a moment think of this as a linear correlation.

f(x) = kx , f(x) = change in temperature celcius, x = change in CO2
What should 'k' be, if this infact were the case?

0,33 = k*0,33
0,33/0,33 = k
k = 1

Can you think of any correlation in the world where 'k' isn't equal 1?

I can!
An example i like to use is this:

1. You eat a 1kg nice burger
2. After about 24-36 hours you go the toilet
3. Only 0.85kg comes out

Now wait, let's think about this.... Does this mean that 'k' isn't always equal to 1?

You can falcify my argumentation by collecting some impirical data ;)

Anthony Pirtle
- 11/12/2011 at 23:44

You may not know the cause of climate change, but 97% of climatologists will tell you its us.

tomregit
- 11/13/2011 at 09:11

@ Anthony Pirtle.
"You may not know the cause of climate change, but 97% of climatologists will tell you its us."
The figure you quote (97%) is, I assume, from the eos survey on climate change. This is an organization who's credentials most, myself included, would hold in high esteem. However, may I point out that the survey in question is often incorrectly quoted as asking whether climate change is caused by human activity, when in fact the question posed was "whether human activity had a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". I hope I'm not putting too fine a point on this, but exactness when quoting "experts" is something we should strive for so as not to change the meaning of their words. Causing and contributing to are not the same.
I am not denying climate change, man's impact on it, or the necessity to search for answers to shake ourselves from our consumerist society and it's reliance on fossil fuels. I only attempt to point out that the problem is not nearly as simple or black and white as many believe, then use spurious arguments to back their position.

Edit: Anthony, when I used the phrase "spurious arguments" it may have sounded like I meant you and I would like to clarify by saying I was NOT referring to you. I apologize if that was the impression originally left.

greeneyeswideopen
- 11/13/2011 at 14:47

No matter the outcome of that particular debate is re credentials, re what questions were posed exactly, the planet's physics and bio-chemistry will move forward relentlessly.

In this time of unemployment, we have huge resources untapped (human intelligence and energy) which is wasting away. We should be pursuing a technological revolution that will ensure the long-term survival of the planet and our civilization with all the unemployed ready and able to work. WE NEED TO REALIGN our choices and our use of resources.

combination
- 11/12/2011 at 14:11

I worry because everuthing that human's invented had worse consequences for nature and our health.

We like to think that we now everything, but we don't.

We can not even clean our own mess, how do you think you can controle the climate???

It's verry short sited vieuw, to put your responsibilty away on the goverment in the hope they find the ultimate solution.

The document description about what haooens if earth warms up 3 degrees is exaggerated: it would be just good for us if things got warmer, for you could farm more stuff in ghe north. I know people in the hottest areas may think it's a threat and of course they got a good reason, but three more degrees isn't gonna ruin your plantations is they're done the natural way, not the plow-the-field way. Getting shade from trees and building water storing systems is what you need, not some carbon tax nor advanced tech to manipulate the weather.

yes, get a little warmer and thaw the tundra. Tundra thaws and the frozen vegitative materials start to rot releasing methane which is far worse that co2. Dont forget hot countries will become unliveable and the mountains snows will disappear. All BAD.

Yep, carbon tax is the give away. The Earth has had major periods of cooling and warming in the past, and will do in the future, with or without people. It's not global warming that I am denying, but the reasons given for it and the solution: carbon tax. I live in Africa, a continent that has bought into global warming and carbon tax (USA has still not signed the Kyoto Protocol) - obey the masters you know! We need money for education, houses, food, clean water. Does anyone know what will be done with this carbon tax? Supply jobs for people in the developed world (administration and policing) and become yet another 'commodity' to be traded on stock markets?

WRONG. the carbon had to come from somewhere and the only place is coal and oil. The planet has been busy locking the stuff up until we reached a beautiful balance. A balance that allowed civilization to bloom. There is a lag between the year the carban is released to the time of the warming impact. So in 200 years the temperature increase will continuing because of other consequences e.g. the release of methane and the disappearance of forests. ITS A FREIGHT TRAIN AND ITS GOING TO HIT OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS.

AndyA121
- 11/13/2011 at 08:47

Carbon is good! Have you ever heard of "Photosynthesis"? I think it is the sun that is going through the changes, so of course it will effect us as well as the other planets, whichever it is, charging the public to breath is not going to solve the problem.Follow the money.

greeneyeswideopen
- 11/13/2011 at 14:41

Yes I have heard of photosynthesis. I know carbon is a building block and so is oxygen. Do you know about the carbon cycle? Do you know that the oceans absorb excess carbon? Do you know that the oceans are saturated with carbon? Do you know what happens next? If you dont: excess carbon in the ocean results in the ACIDIFICATION of the ocean. Bye-bye coral reefs and bye-bye fish. Hello, jelly-fish. Yummy, jelly-fish. Good to eat.

eyecandy_babydoll
- 11/15/2011 at 00:07

so true! and the scary thing is, in some parts of the world (Sydney, Australia), it's actually getting wetter and COOLER!

Yet the damn government wants to bring on the carbon tax which doesn't help global warming, but gives the government a nice paycheck (and for stock brokers to trade on carbon credits)

Branefart
- 11/12/2011 at 09:39

It was +4c here in Alberta with zero snow. 5 to 10 years ago it would have been -20c with 4 feet of snow by now. It's obvious something is happening.

The last few years, November has been beautiful in Montreal. Summer ends at the end of September and fall is long and gentle. Montreal,QC - not so when I was a kid.

A friend works in Northern Quebec. Last December it rained all month.The Inuit were entirely freaked out! Never in living or oral memory has this ever happened.

dekay49
- 11/12/2011 at 03:32

hmmmmm, I knew there was something fishy about this global warming....that is probably why my pipes froze and burst last winter here in Florida......... go figure This is nothing but another scam to bilk even more money out of people with a non existent threat that if we don't do something, all will be lost gimme a break

Yes, and its hotter in Canada. There is more energy in the air- its hotter which means the molecules are more energetic. The dew point is higher and the air can hold more water. Consequently, weather patterns are disrupted. The snow belt has moved south. MONTREAL used to have lots of snow BUT since 1980 the snow isn't what it was. Now we have green christmasses. That is not a scam.

eyecandy_babydoll
- 11/15/2011 at 00:47

Here in Sydney Australia, we had the coldest summer & winter in 70 years. It kept raining, it was freezing & we had to buy more heaters to warm up the house. I've lived here for over 20 years and have never seen anything like it

Yi Wen Qian
- 11/16/2011 at 15:58

Ah, that's because we had el Nina last year, which is like the opposite of el Nino, and so it was rather an abnormal natural disaster which shouldn't reflect the normal weather pattern so to speak. There were huge floods, but somehow Perth still has droughts. Media seems to be more interested in reporting the disaster than the cause, which I thought was silly.

The money from carbon tax goes directly back into compensating the household, in fact the government is put extra 4-5 billion more into compensation. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but it is the case in Australia.

I never said we should ignore it, I made it pretty clear that I think we are definitely poisoning our environment with chemicals... Well imagine if we stopped our current methods and found safe alternatives? Pretty much takes care of your global warming fears as well. Kill the chemicals you kill the damage to the planet. i just said that it's being over hyped by these documentaries so that corporations can pass regulatory systems and new standards that will ultimately give them more control, plus we will be taxed for it. I also said that we probably could impact the temperature, but that I seriously doubt we have done anything that is going to make the world unlivable in another 100 or even 100,000 years.... People were saying that 100 years ago back when industrial pollution was even more prevalent, and they were saying that back in the day's of Noah. And we are still here, environment is as unpredictable as ever...

These people are like the saturday morning watchtower folks, screaming damnation and hellfire if we don't change our ways. It is fearmongering. If it was really this bad, and the higher ups were aware of it (WHICH I GUARANTEE THEY WOULD BE) they would FORCE the system to change out of self interest, which is obviously not happening.

As a chemist major it always freaks me out how people talk about "chemicals" as if they all have a negative effect. The definition of the word chemical is- A compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, esp. artificially. Most compounds that we synthesize in the lab occurr in nature as well. As the elements come into contact in varying environmental conditions they react naturally and form thousands and thousands of useful, essential compounds. Life would not exist without all of the naturally occurring bio- chemistry that takes place inside living systems, life would not exist without all of the naturally occurring organic chemistry that takes place all over the universe, and life as we know it would not exist without all of the synthetic chemistry performed by people like me in labs all over the world everyday.

Mans salvation does not lie in exstinguishing the spark of discovery, for man would not be man without it!!!!! Insted we should strive to develope mans sense of morality, responsibility, his ability to be humble. In our arrogance we have attempted to rule mother nature and control her natural systems to our gain, insted of learning from her. I am not talking about drum circles and tree hugging, I am talking about a real scientific effort to bend our essential man made systems into equalibrium, or replace them with newer systems that we can sustain.

This however takes real money, just like any other scientific breakthrough, real effort from politicians, industry, big business and banking, citizens, etc. It makes sense no matter which way you weigh it to do so, it creates jobs and relieves our environmental stresses at the same time. But as long as profit motivation rides in the driver seat nothing will change. Unregulated capitalism is the biggest enemy man faces, it will kill every living soul on this earth in search of more and more. What we caurrently call regulation is a joke, it strangles small businesses, pollutes our environment, and retains profit motivation as the primary decision maker. Not to mention favoring western life styles and completely overlooking the rest of the worlds future needs.

@ wald0
I haven't read much from you lately. I may not agree with everything you post (though I can't think of a single instance off the top of my head :0) Your thoughts are insightful and I'm happy you're still hanging in here. Liked. Great comment!

greeneyeswideopen
- 11/13/2011 at 14:54

Exactly, wald0. Unregulated capitalism and an uneducated, impoverish population is very dangerous. We need a social, cultural and economic revolution. We need to bring LOCAL back into the Main street economy. We need to regain control of our agricultural resources and redevelop farming, we need to reduce industrial agriculture and processed food (actually, processed food makes us ill , weak, fat and lethargic). There is so much we need to do that our unemployment rate would be 0%. Our elite are a miserable failure; they have no vision but only a selfish desire for instant gratification and greed no matter what the long term cost is.

Anthony Williams
- 11/11/2011 at 23:34

Its sad really were saddled with economic principles that will never allow for any meaningful remedial action to take place until the world is so devoid of material resources that the bottom line of all multi nationals cant help but suffer. Then and only then will they take notice, but my guess is that by then it will be to late.

The power and influence of the plutocracy that has risen up under the ideas of the free-market is so vast that they can ignore all reasoned approaches with absolute impunity.

Yes the sun controls the climate in the ultimate sense, and its orbit is a bit wobbly but the idea that we should therefore ignore our own effect on the environment is nothing short of genocidal in the long term and suicidal in the end.

Maybe science will deliver us in the eleventh hour with some miracle source of energy, curing us from all our ills, who knows, never say never. Place your bets people, in the mean time...

Someone should make a film portraying the end of days where all the rich try to abscond the planet in a luxury space shuttle but are doomed when some months into the voyage they discover that they are overloaded by their wives, families and other such hangers-on and have brought on-board so many prada bags and other such swineish luxuries that they will surely consume their supplies to soon. In the closing scenes a dramatic irony plays out as their fuel and supplies are depleted at an alarming rate, due to their own innate selfishness, leaving them to expire in the lonely vacuum long before they ever reach their destination... or! they could make it to the surface of Mars say, and then they perish! *<8p lacking the capacity (as we all know they do) to establish a colony for themselves without the skills and practical methods of the common man, whom they have betrayed 8( , bla-de, bla- de, blah, throw in some masonic symbology, jobs done.

It might be a bit close to communist propaganda but it would make me feel better about the whole thing.

Another example, just so you can understand how easy it is for a documentary to take a natural event, and twist it to seem horrible. There was a documentary about global warming several years ago produced by a local college, and a woman from our town participated in it. She was also my neighbor and friend. Long story so I'll try to make it as short as possible. She had a SEASONAL creek in her front yard, which means, this creek flowed only during the winter seasons, and was dry all summer, this is how it always has been. When she met with the camera crew, she was walking them around her yard, just chit chatting, they wanted to know if they could film in her front yard and if she would show them around and tell them about her ideas while they asked her some questions as well. Which she did. The asked about the creek, and why it was dry. She told them it was a seasonal creek. The interview continued and after much discussion the conclusion she thought had been reached was that for roughly the past 40 years of her life, the winters and summers had varied CONSTANTLY and she could not decide whether global warming was real or not. FORWARD 3 MONTHS my friend attends a viewing of the edited final version of the documentary at the college, and then forces them to remove her part from the documentary, she brought me a copy in fact because she was so angry about it, she just wanted to help the college kids and they basically twisted her words to make it match the media story in a way that apparently, their own professor had requested.

The video shows the dry creek, there is copied and pasted the audio from later questions that had nothing to do with the creek, and by the time it was over it basically portrayed her as saying that "Global warming has decimated my home, my livelyhood, and my creek." Which in fact, was not at all what she had discussed with them.

We approaced the professor and he actually informed us that he did not intend on punishing the student for being dis-honest, and that their class focuses more on learning journalistic tactics that are useful in the modern job markets...

So believe what you want, I'm going with the notion that our planet is much tougher and has a much more varied scale of possible environmental conditions than any of us quite understand, why else would there be such prolific and differing variations of life throughout the aeons? because the earth's atmosphere changes from time to time and there is nothing we can do about it because it has nothing to do with us, it has to do with our link to our star, as it also has a variable cycle as well.

Also, notice, all the politicians that push this stuff, they don't want to actually stop polluting the planet, they just want the Polluters to pay them MORE money to be ABLE to pollute. And I think that say's a lot.

Also, I remember a major documentary being about how the ice core sample method has a major error in how they are interpreting the results and the much more accurate method is to use core samples from old lava flows. Just think about this people.

Mt. St. Hellens put 50 million times as much Co2 into the environment in ONE explosion, than man has put out IN THE HISTORY OF WORLD. That means, that in like, 100 million years, at this rate, we will have put out as much Co2 as ONE SINGLE VOLCANO.

Don't listen to these fear mongers, they are just pushing for a carbon tax.

Another point to consider, if the amount of gases had really gone up by as much as 30% like they are saying, WHY have the temperatures not gone up by 30% because it seems pretty logical that if they are correlated there should be an immediate and noticable effect. Not some boogeyman future problem that could jump out at any time. Show me the dying forests, show me the dying ocean, I work in the forest and I live in the sea, and the fish still taste fine, and the air still smells sweet. I can totally see how repeatedly showing this to city dwellers could easily convince them, since they don't live in the wild, and their cities are in fact filled with smog, which makes this kinda junk seem more real. But drive 30 miles north south east west, guess what happens? The plants filter the smog out and the air is clean again.

And don't say that the amount of kids with Asthma is proof, kid's born with asthma are born that way because their mother's did not do a good job keeping their bodies well kept, newest discoveries have linked the MOTHER's Folic acid supplies PRE-vitro and if the acid supply is not there, everything from spinal density to lung development is effected. So there you go stupid women that don't eat enough veggies, you gave your kids asthma because you're a bad parent. Good job.

"Mt. St. Hellens put 50 million times as much Co2 into the environment in ONE explosion, than man has put out IN THE HISTORY OF WORLD"

LMFAO - Wher do you get this crap from......

David Foster
- 11/12/2011 at 02:21

Ummm... No it didn't. But thanks for playing!

Sieben Stern
- 11/11/2011 at 22:01

did you even watch the docu? they show dying forests and dying oceans ^^; some people won't be convinced until it's lying at their feet.

what would be wrong with cleaning up pollution? we could make a jobs program out of it.

and if women aren't taking care of themselves during pregnancy, maybe the MEN should stick around longer than it took them to make the baby and help out.

Jeremy
- 11/11/2011 at 22:20

Like I said, I work in forests all over, it' really not hard to take a camera to an area that just had a controlled burn and it looks all arrid and dead... Use ur head man, I can show you a thousand places where the environment is pristine and perfect and I can show you thousands of women that are smoking on a cigarette while eating jack in the box for breakfast. What does the sperm donor have to do with the WOMAN's own personal decision to take care of herself and be responsible enough to learn about pregnancy before getting knocked up while drunk with a guy that does not care about her, I think that basically outlines how ILLOGICAL most of these women are.

I have friends that work out of Chico State University in biology and habitats that do testing on the air / water etc in our northern california area. Guess what? Everything is fine up here guys! Mebe down in your littered smog filled cities, like I said, things are gross, but whatever, don't believe me, I only live and study here.

DON'T study the earths previous hot / cold periods and how they related to Co2 emissions, DON'T look at the distance the earth was from the sun during those periods and it WON'T quickly become apparent that our temperatures have more to do with distance from the sun and solar flares, than with our burning of already burning on this earth substances.

NOW. I'm not saying that we can't inflict minor MINOR temperature changes, but I seriously doubt it, what I'm saying, is the apocalyptic doomsday like approach and blaming it on man is overlooking the very vital role that OUR STAR, OUR FRIGGIN HEAT SOURCE, plays in this equation.

So charged particles would heat the upper atmosphere right? Everyone knows and admits that. AND IT Makes sense to me... WOWZERS GUESS WHAT? we are currently undergoing one of the biggest solar flare-up periods in the last 200 years... EVEN NASA ADMITS IT.... Anyone following me? WOULD IT NOT MAKE SENSE THEN THAT THE TEMPERATURE SHOULD GO UP WHEN OUR UPPER ATMOSPHERE IS BOMBARDED WITH CHARGED PARTICLES FROM THE SUN? It's like putting an egg in a microwave, IMO, microwave is off = egg is safe, microwave in short bursts = temperature fluctuations possibly detrimental to egg, microwave in long bursts = total annihilation of egg and possibly microwave oven... lol

Poisoning the earth, PROBABLY, we have created and distributed chemicals that did not naturally exist in their current form and in mass quantity, probably going to be a bad thing overall. HEATING the earth... NO. Sorry, but like I said, it doesn't take a genius to realize this. And if Al Gore and his contemporaries are right, why do they always get pwned in debates that end up not being aired, when they come face to face with real scientists.

Jeremy
- 11/11/2011 at 19:50

Except... That... The ... Latest... Science.. Has... Proven.. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the SUN controls our climate, not man.

I will say however, that I do forsee that man can definitely POISON the planet with chemicals, but just think about it, even if everyone on earth lit a bonfire tonight, it would not raise the temp even one degree, guarantee it.

No..it...has...not. Almost all scientists believe in global warming. I'm sorry you and several other people would rather not face the truth, but facts are facts.

Believe as you will, but please don't spread your unsupported believes as science.

Benjamin Clarkson
- 11/12/2011 at 02:42

We have isotopes collected from the upper atmosphere showing the majority of the rising CO2 is man made. This is the hottest the planet has ever been, along with one of the largest mass extinctions since before the ice age.
Also Solar power, which is going to solve alot of these problems, and cradle to cradle engineering, make economic sense. New high tech jobs, solar mirror plants create desalinated water, no more reliance on foreign energy, and high efficiency electrical systems coupled with resource responsibility and a decrease of waste.
Why NOT do that? Because it's easy? It would've been easy not to go to the moon, but going to the moon created so much wealth and technology (the integrated circuit) that our lives would be very different if it never happened.
Get a clue, invest in a high risk alternate energy fund and enjoy the fact the THINGS CHANGE ALL THE TIME.

Jeremy
- 11/12/2011 at 03:16

Re -read my post, I think "safe alternatives" encompasses pretty much everything you just said. Obviously leaving chemicals behinds requires a new way of thinking and new jobs industries and so on : ) Good day